Title
Sterling Products International, Inc. vs. Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft
Case
G.R. No. L-19906
Decision Date
Apr 30, 1969
Sterling Products International (SPI) and Farbenfabriken Bayer (FBA) dispute trademark rights over "BAYER" and "BAYER CROSS IN CIRCLE" in the Philippines. SPI uses them for medicines; FBA for chemicals. Court allows both, requiring FBA to add a distinctive identifier to avoid confusion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 439)

Background of the Trademark Use

SPI has been using the trademark BAYER primarily for its pharmaceutical products, specifically Bayer Aspirin, Aspirin for Children, and Cafiaspirina. Conversely, FBA, through AMATCO, markets industrial and agricultural chemicals, including the insecticide Folidol, which uses a similar BAYER CROSS IN CIRCLE mark. The case centers on the legality of both parties' use of the trademark in the Philippine market, leading to allegations of trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Trial Court's Ruling

The trial court favored a division of the market, allowing SPI to continue using the BAYER trademark for medicines while allowing FBA to use it for chemicals but ordered FBA to add distinguishing words to indicate that its products are from Germany. Both parties appealed various aspects of the ruling.

Historical Context of the BAYER Trademark

The surname BAYER originates from Friedrich Bayer, who founded a chemical company in Germany in 1863. The BAYER CROSS IN CIRCLE trademark was registered in Germany in 1904 and has since garnered widespread recognition, especially with the invention of Aspirin. The trademark has been registered in multiple countries over the decades, including the United States and Japan, where the BAYER brand first expanded its market reach.

Legal Framework Governing Trademark Ownership

The court reiterated a key principle that ownership of a trademark is acquired through actual use in commerce. SPI claimed ownership based on prior registrations but only used the BAYER trademark in the Philippines for medicinal products. The court emphasized that registration alone does not confer exclusive rights to a trademark without corresponding use in the relevant jurisdiction.

Evaluation of Trademark Registration and Use

The court found that SPI’s registrations of the BAYER trademarks pertained exclusively to medicines, and thus, SPI could not claim ownership over chemical products under those registrations. The court highlighted the necessity for applicants to specify the goods when registering a trademark, indicating that SPI’s claim was limited to medicines only.

Territoriality of Trademark Rights

The principle of territoriality dictates that registration in one jurisdiction (e.g., the United States) does not guarantee rights in another (e.g., the Philippines). Therefore, FBA's claims about trademark usage in the United States did not grant it rights to the BAYER trademark for chemical products in the Philippines.

Confusion of Origin Doctrine

The legal standard for determining whether the use of a trademark by different parties leads to confusion revolves around the "confusion of origin" rule. SPI argued that consumers might confuse FBA’s products with its medicines due to the similarities in the trademark. However, the court noted that the historical use and established reputation of FBA’s predecessor in the pharmaceuticals industry weighed against SPI's claims.

Findings of the Trial Court

The trial court found that defendants FBA had introduced BAYER medical products in

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.